Orissa High Court
Shantilata Rout vs State Of Odisha And Another on 18 February, 2025
Author: Sashikanta Mishra
Bench: Sashikanta Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
R.S.A. No.18 of 2021
Shantilata Rout ..... Appellant
Represented by
Mr.D.P.Mohanty, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and another ..... Respondents
Represented by None
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
ORDER
18.2.2025.
Order No.
03. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant is permitted to correct the
error at pages 7 and 8 of the Second Appeal.
3. Heard Mr. D.P. Mohanty, learned counsel for the appellant,
on the question of admission. Perused the judgments passed by
the lower appellate court as well as the trial court.
4. Considering the submissions and the grounds raised, the
RSA is admitted on the following substantial questions of law;
(A)The original lease deed i.e. the Hat Patta dated
07.06.1941 being a crucial document for adjudication of
// 2 //
the suit, whether the learned lower Appellate Court has
committed gross error of law in rejecting the petition
dated 01.02.2020 for acceptance of the same as
additional evidence, by ignoring the evidence of the
P.W.2 stating regarding the availability of the photo copy
of the document vis-a-vis the explanation given in the
petition regarding its non-availability during the trial of
the suit, especially when the document in question is
necessary for proper adjudication of the dispute?
(B) Similarly all the documents under the petition dated
07.02.2019 for acceptance of additional evidence, being
public documents, and ignoring the documents under SI.
Nos. 1, 2 & 3, the two sheets of rent receipts filed under
SI. No.4, the receipt of the year 1971-72 showing
payment of certificate dues under Ext.14 and receipt of
the year 1983-84(No.173672) having found place in
Ext.11, being necessary for proper adjudication of the
claims of the Plaintiff, the same being relatable to
already marked documents under Ext. 14 and 11 whether
the learned lower Appellate Court has committed gross
error of law in rejecting the petition?
(C) Whether the Courts below have committed gross
error of non-consideration of material documents on
record by ignoring the Plot Index under Ext.4 vis-a-vis
the Plot Index under Ext.12 which shows the
correspondence of the same Sabak Plot out of which
50% has been recorded under the name of the transferee
of the original lessee Arjun Singh and the rest part
claimed by the Plaintiff?
(D) Whether the Courts below have committed gross
error of non-consideration of material documents on
record by ignoring the vital part of Ext.11 i.e. the records
of the Appeal Case No.2299/77, which reveals as to how
the same Sabak Plot out of which 50% has been recorded
under the name of the transferee of the original lessee
Arjun Singh, fortifying the fact that the rest half of the
property belongs to the Plaintiff?
(E) When one lease deed i.e. the Hat Patta is issued in
favour of Arjun Singh and Bali Samal in respect of the
same Sabak Plot and after the death of Bali, the Plaintiff
being his only legal heir claiming title in respect of the
suit land, whether the courts below is correct in holding
// 3 //
that the Plaintiff is no more a co-sharer and / or co-owner
of Arjun Singh or his subsequent purchasers?
5. Issue notice to the Respondents by Registered Post with
A.D. making it returnable within four weeks. Requisites be
filed within three working days. L.C.R. be called for.
6. List this matter in the week commencing 7.3.2025.
(Sashikanta Mishra)
AKB Judge
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
